It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

“There is a war coming in Europe”

page: 9
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: GargIndia
The West's plan to make an enemy of Russia is short-sighted.

But it happens. I often quote Sanskrit proverb "Vinaash Kaale Vipreet Buddhi" (In bad time, humans act against discretion)


See, that comment makes no sense. Since the end of the Cold War, the West/NATO have gone to great lengths to try and be friends with Russia and it worked, for a while. But since Putin took power, this has slowly cooled and for some reason, Russia views NATO as an adversary when in actual fact, NATO would have loved to have welcome Russia in to it's ranks - Russian pride got in the way of that though.




posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Sure, and because NATO wants to be bff with Russia, i guess that's why they are making military bases closer and closer to Russian borders.

NATO and Russia never liked eachother. It's a lie NATO wanted to be "friends" with Russia not now, not during Soviet Union not ever. There were always huge differences between "democratic" and capitalistic west, and communist east.

That's why i hope your post was just a sarcasm.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

Nope, not at all and a cursory glance at NATO - Russian relations will show that the West did try to normalise relations post-Cold War. It is Russia dragging us back..

As for the "NATO" bases "further and further East"... What bases? NATO member states joined from the east, but there was comparatively few foreign troop deployments until very recently.

If NATO wanted confrontation, why have many members allowed defence spending to slip below the required levels for membership? Only in the past week has there been talk to increase defence spending to the required 2% minimum in the UK, with us urging other members to follow suit.

Not exactly the behaviour you'd expect of countries "wanting war with Russia", is it?

But, I can see your a Serb, so we can assume you probably have pro-Russian leanings coupled with some fairly strong anti-West ones...



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

The fact is, NATO is getting closer to Russian borders. Either by making bases, or by new countries joining in. It makes no difference.

And, again, it's a lie that NATO wanted to be friends with Russia. Maybe NATO wanted Russia to become just another puppet in their master show alongside with US, and Russians didn't want that. This option seems more possible to me.

Well, i guess they widen their sanctions against Russia, for what reason then? I think NATO wants to provoke Russia and push them to a corner, so that they can't answer by anything else than a violence. I don't think NATO wants to be the first one to fire.

Yes, i despise the responsible ones for bombing my country for three months. I've tasted western democracy on my own skin. Can you blame me that I'm a little reserved when it comes to EU/NATO? But i do not hate western people, not even for their double standards. I've grown past that.
edit on 643k2014Saturdayam014 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
The fact is, NATO is getting closer to Russian borders. Either by making bases, or by new countries joining in. It makes no difference.


Actually, it does - it makes the world of difference. You claimed NATO was building bases closer and closer to Russia, when in actual fact those bases were always there, even from the Soviet days and it's just the nation that has signed up to NATO.


originally posted by: Nikola014
And, again, it's a lie that NATO wanted to be friends with Russia. Maybe NATO wanted Russia to become just another puppet in their master show alongside with US, and Russians didn't want that. This option seems more possible to me.


Weird - first you state something as a "lie", meaning you are stating it as a matter of fact then finish off with "it's an option that is possible", as if it were just opinion.

Which is it? If it is a matter of fact, care to back it up, because I can, if needed, provide you with plenty of examples of NATO trying to get along with Russia. I reckon it's more of the latter though and not so much of the former, simply down to your own admission of being jaded against NATO.


originally posted by: Nikola014
Well, i guess they widen their sanctions against Russia, for what reason then? I think NATO wants to provoke Russia and push them to a corner, so that they can't answer by anything else than a violence. I don't think NATO wants to be the first one to fire.


That makes no logical sense - why would the West want to get into a costly and pointless war? If we wanted War, we could have simply invoked the 1994 Budapest agreement, where we guaranteed Ukrainian Sovereignty and kicked Russian arse all the way back to Moscow - NATO did not, because it is largely quite cowardly and will only get involved if it absolutely has to - they don't have evil meetings once a month plotting some unbelievably complex and nefarious scheme to trick another World power into firing first...


originally posted by: Nikola014
Yes, i despise the responsible ones for bombing my country for three months.


Maybe then you shouldn't have gone around the Balkans causing such mischief... Blame Milosovic, not the West - we sat on our behinds for years, politely asking you guys to stop with the genocide, ethnic cleansing and what have you and we were ignored. Don't blame NATO, blame you own retarded and evil leadership.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason


Actually, it does - it makes the world of difference. You claimed NATO was building bases closer and closer to Russia, when in actual fact those bases were always there, even from the Soviet days and it's just the nation that has signed up to NATO.


I claimed nothing. I just said, over the course of 50 years, NATO has been getting closer and closer to Russian borders. It's my fault that i wasn't specific more. Ukraine is the last step away from coming right infront of Russian borders.



Weird - first you state something as a "lie", meaning you are stating it as a matter of fact then finish off with "it's an option that is possible", as if it were just opinion.

Which is it? If it is a matter of fact, care to back it up, because I can, if needed, provide you with plenty of examples of NATO trying to get along with Russia. I reckon it's more of the latter though and not so much of the former, simply down to your own admission of being jaded against NATO.


I was saying it's a lie, but if I'm mistaken, the more realistic option to me is that NATO wanted to control Russia and make them their puppets. And yes, I would really like to see documents that can back up those claims of yours. Final years of previous milenium were kinda crazy at least for me and my country, so it's possible I am wrong which i highly doubt.



That makes no logical sense - why would the West want to get into a costly and pointless war? If we wanted War, we could have simply invoked the 1994 Budapest agreement, where we guaranteed Ukrainian Sovereignty and kicked Russian arse all the way back to Moscow - NATO did not, because it is largely quite cowardly and will only get involved if it absolutely has to - they don't have evil meetings once a month plotting some unbelievably complex and nefarious scheme to trick another World power into firing first...

A lot of things changed in the past 20 years.
You ask why? Hm, i don't know. Maybe because US is bankrupt? Maybe because the same destiny awaits EU? That's why we see all this propaganda against Russia and Putin? They want to justify any future potential military action? Just a thought.



Maybe then you shouldn't have gone around the Balkans causing such mischief... Blame Milosovic, not the West - we sat on our behinds for years, politely asking you guys to stop with the genocide, ethnic cleansing and what have you and we were ignored. Don't blame NATO, blame you own retarded and evil leadership.


This just makes me wanna laugh. As a military participant of that war, i claim with my life that no ethnic cleansing nor genocide wasn't tried.
You've been fed with false information for so many years so NATO and US can justify their actions against my country. After Milosevic, socialism was destroyed, and finally western democratic came. I can say amen to that. We live so much better now.
Did you even bother doing some of your own research?

Fun fact: Did you know that the "international court" In Hague, is a court for Serbs only?


With this i am seriously done with any further discussion with you.
edit on 614k2014Saturdayam014 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Russia should invade the Ukraine to retore peace and order after the USA started this mess with its $5bn round of bribes and back hand deals.

Lets face it Russia is always getting the blame so it might as well do something to earn it



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
I claimed nothing. I just said, over the course of 50 years, NATO has been getting closer and closer to Russian borders. It's my fault that i wasn't specific more.


Your exact words:


Sure, and because NATO wants to be bff with Russia, i guess that's why they are making military bases closer and closer to Russian borders.



originally posted by: Nikola014
I was saying it's a lie, but if I'm mistaken, the more realistic option to me is that NATO wanted to control Russia and make them their puppets. And yes, I would really like to see documents that can back up those claims of yours. Final years of previous milenium were kinda crazy at least for me and my country, so it's possible I am wrong which i highly doubt.


During the 90's, Russia and NATO were actually very pally - joint exercises, joint commands, intelligence sharing etc. The Putin came along in 2001 and it all went, slowly, downhill.


originally posted by: Nikola014
A lot of things changed in the past 20 years.
You ask why? Hm, i don't know. Maybe because US is bankrupt? Maybe because the same destiny awaits EU? That's why we see all this propaganda against Russia and Putin? They want to justify any future potential military action? Just a thought.


A dopy thought - an "almost bankrupt" US and EU want to go to War? One thing above all else that you need to wage war is Gold (or it's equivalent....). With no cash, how on earth are we supposed to wage, much less win, this war? Two thoughts:

a) We're not almost bankrupt

or

b) We don't want war.


originally posted by: Nikola014

This just makes me wanna laugh. As a military participant of that war, i claim with my life that no ethnic cleansing nor genocide wasn't tried.
You've been fed with false information for so many years so NATO and US can justify their actions against my country. After Milosevic, socialism was destroyed, and finally western democratic came. I can say amen to that. We live so much better now.
Did you even bother doing some of your own research?

Fun fact: Did you know that the "international court" In Hague, is a court for Serbs only?


With this i am seriously done with any further discussion with you.


Riiiiiight.... I suppose all those civilians just shot and then buried themselves in mass graves, didn't they? I know plenty of family and friends who served in Bosnia and Kosovo who would disagree with you quite vehemently.

And no, it isn't just Serbs at the Hague, it's just mass murdering scum bags, so stop whining.

And it's fine if "you're done with me", because to be honest from what you have posted, you're living in denial and can't be relied upon to have an impartial and objective viewpoint.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
I was reading this Financial Times article about the landmark arbitration ruling on the Yukos situation.




Yukos shareholders face battle to claim $50 billion

Beleaguered shareholders of Yukos could scarcely have imagined when they launched arbitration in 2005 they would one day be awarded $50bn in damages – nor that the ruling would be released into the febrile atmosphere that exists between Russia and the west today.

The award is a landmark not just for its size – 20 times the previous record for an arbitration ruling. The tribunal also found definitively that Russia’s pursuit of Yukos and its independently-minded main shareholder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a decade ago was politically motivated.

More...



But what is really disturbing is this final quote found in the article:




But if Russian state businesses find themselves hit both by western sanctions and attempts to seize assets by Yukos shareholders, relations between the Kremlin and the west could sour further.

One person close to Mr Putin said the Yukos ruling was insignificant in light of the bigger geopolitical stand-off over Ukraine. “There is a war coming in Europe,” he said. “Do you really think this matters?”



Sobering, isn't it?

I'd love to know who the person close to Putin is?

See also, Court orders Russia to pay investors over $50B for expropriation of Yukos oil company

The chatter for world war is higher than I've seen in a very long time.



The person closest to Putin is a public relations and media officer. Information is put out to set the tone of Putin's determination against western oligarchs on the Russian border, a direct western threat against his solid rule, as he sees it.

The civilized world view sees the west as an honorless war monger accustomed to exercising its technological superiority over undeveloped and petroleum bearing countries.

Any outright conflicts involving Russia would be a game changer, especially when considering the massive resources at Russia's disposal within its own border. Let's not forget the obvious geographical advantage of Russia with countries on its perimeter.

Direct western involvement in the Ukrainian conflict would ultimately provide Putin with further context in elevating the fight to higher levels. Any western interests in Ukraine would quickly dissipate in the massive destruction and losses of escalation. Logistically, the west would need weeks to move its war machine through the large region of Ukraine, while Russia is already poised to invade with mechanized and armored infantry units from its long border. Putin made the first move and thus calculated a large advantage.

Frankly, many of us would be surprised to see any provocative moves against Russian aggression in the form of a direct (western) military presence. It would not only be foolish and counter intuitive, but would bring the threat of Russian invasion into western Europe. A prolonged war in Ukraine would result in an East - West Ukraine with a demilitarized border region, like the former wall that separated West and East Germany during the cold war. In the fog of conflict, Russia would also have the opportunity to invade eastern Poland or at least incur its eastern border through the Baltic states for tactical advantages.

Also, I wouldn't assume that any escalation of ground conflict leaning toward nuclear threats would in the least intimidate Putin in such a case. Any counter advances against Russia now would only cause Putin to choose between backing off (which would be caving to western power) or quickly advancing deep into Ukrainian territory in a desperate effort to secure the Eastern half in order to save face.


edit on 2-8-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar and composition



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: stumason

The fact is, NATO is getting closer to Russian borders. Either by making bases, or by new countries joining in. It makes no difference.

And, again, it's a lie that NATO wanted to be friends with Russia. Maybe NATO wanted Russia to become just another puppet in their master show alongside with US, and Russians didn't want that. This option seems more possible to me.

Well, i guess they widen their sanctions against Russia, for what reason then? I think NATO wants to provoke Russia and push them to a corner, so that they can't answer by anything else than a violence. I don't think NATO wants to be the first one to fire.

Yes, i despise the responsible ones for bombing my country for three months. I've tasted western democracy on my own skin. Can you blame me that I'm a little reserved when it comes to EU/NATO? But i do not hate western people, not even for their double standards. I've grown past that.



I have to agree with your assessment in basic terms. In the US we are sadly ruled by a semivisible faction of militaristic capitalists who determine policy and thus capital gain, through political think tanks, international freedom initiatives and corporate investment in pentagon war politics. They are the puppet masters of Islamofacists and Zionists, who deal in conflict at the expense of all else.
edit on 2-8-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
The fact is, NATO is getting closer to Russian borders.


You clearly do not realise NATO has had borders with Russia for a while – Estonia, Latvia and even Poland borders Russian Kaliningrad.

Russia wants to keep vassal states as buffers, but these vassals no longer want to be treated as such – they want to be part of the richer and more prosperous EU. Only the authoritarian Belarus wants to stay in Russia’s sphere.

Sovereign nations can choose their destinies and Russia does not offer very much.

Also, every prediction of war on ATS fails. Remember the war with Iran? Syria? There won't be war.

Regards

edit on 2/8/2014 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Poland

ya ,, just where again is Poland on the NORTH ATLANTIC?

agin???

oh yea thanks Bill Clinton,,another brilliant idea.

north atlantic treaty oranization,,too keep the North Atlantic sea lanes free,, for the entire world.

Poland????



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: GargIndia
The West's plan to make an enemy of Russia is short-sighted.

But it happens. I often quote Sanskrit proverb "Vinaash Kaale Vipreet Buddhi" (In bad time, humans act against discretion)


See, that comment makes no sense. Since the end of the Cold War, the West/NATO have gone to great lengths to try and be friends with Russia and it worked, for a while. But since Putin took power, this has slowly cooled and for some reason, Russia views NATO as an adversary when in actual fact, NATO would have loved to have welcome Russia in to it's ranks - Russian pride got in the way of that though.



The problem with Russia is its lack of imagination for potential. In historical context, the Bolshevik ideology left everything in the hands of bureaucrats, without innovation.

One of the great American intellects of our time, Anthony Sutton, found that wall street profited by industrializing the Soviet Union; "In a few words, there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance".[2]

Despite this, by the 1980s Russia's economy and agricultural sectors were so stagnant that Perestroika was initiated to save the Kremlin by decentralizing business and price controls, to elevate competition.

Putin rules as an authoritarian dictator over business and politics through a well connected party of elites from the old military and intelligence guard. Oligarchic capitalism thrives in the medium of democratic systems, which would be a threat to such a Marxist like Putin. His economic successes thus far have been based on the complicity of his cronies in key positions.

His popularity came through land, tax and business reforms, which alleviated about half of the poverty in Russia in his first two terms.

With investments in oil and dependence upon state banks, he seems to be confident that the west won't be able to stop him from seizing Ukrainian assets.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

You clearly have no idea what NATO is. As Poland is in Europe it can also be in NATO, as NATO is an alliance of European and North American nations.

In conventional parlance, Europe as a geographical area stretches well into Russia and down to the Caspian Sea. I guess that would also be the limit of the EU too.

Both the EU and NATO have conditions for membership.

Regards



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gianfar

This is clear BS. what you write.

The West was (and is) in Russia purely for profit. There is no benefit (or thought of it) to the Russian people.

The West lead in industrial revolution. This is the reason technology travelled from West to East. However West profited from the technology sales. This is called trade.

Political ideology is a totally different animal.

Nobody doubts for a second the contribution made by Western scientists and technologists.

But the situation now is not what it was a century ago.

Now we see a morally bankrupt West that initiates wars for profit.

Your definitions of Europe and NATO does not give a natural right to NATO to include Ukraine (because it is in Europe).

Different countries have different reasons for forming alliances.

A large part of Ukrainian population wants to preserve its Slavic character. This includes not only Russian speakers but also non-Russian speakers.

The propaganda from West has penetrated deep into Ukrainian society and caused divisions in the society. This is exacerbated by the failure of the State to provide for its people.


edit on 2-8-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: GargIndia
a reply to: Gianfar

This is clear BS. what you write.

The West was (and is) in Russia purely for profit. There is no benefit (or thought of it) to the Russian people.

The West lead in industrial revolution. This is the reason technology travelled from West to East. However West profited from the technology sales. This is called trade.

Political ideology is a totally different animal.

Nobody doubts for a second the contribution made by Western scientists and technologists.

But the situation now is not what it was a century ago.

Now we see a morally bankrupt West that initiates wars for profit.

Your definitions of Europe and NATO does not give a natural right to NATO to include Ukraine (because it is in Europe).

Different countries have different reasons for forming alliances.

A large part of Ukrainian population wants to preserve its Slavic character. This includes not only Russian speakers but also non-Russian speakers.

The propaganda from West has penetrated deep into Ukrainian society and caused divisions in the society. This is exacerbated by the failure of the State to provide for its people.




What I said about Putin's systemically corrupt and unabashedly dictatorial regime is true and based on good information from politically astute people in Russia.

Can you be specific about what you disagree with in my statement?

Also, what exactly do you mean by western propaganda?



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gianfar

dictatorial regime

Putin opinion polls,,

www.gallup.com...

that would be THE GALLUP polls org.

July 18, 2014


"Russian Approval of Putin Soars to Highest Level in Years
Ratings of U.S., European Union leadership sink to record lows, in single digits"

*SNIP*

Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors
edit on 8/3/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: Gianfar

dictatorial regime

Putin opinion polls,,

www.gallup.com...

that would be THE GALLUP polls org.

July 18, 2014


"Russian Approval of Putin Soars to Highest Level in Years
Ratings of U.S., European Union leadership sink to record lows, in single digits"

your sources are shiiittt.


Wrong pole. My sources are CIA, US and EU diplomats. Too bad you weren't bright enough to ask.




edit on 3-8-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
[
edit on 3-8-2014 by Gianfar because: self censor



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: GargIndia

There was no trade between the US and Soviets until the 1990s. Western industrialization and technical support of socialist states (IE Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, North Vietnam) occurred outside of normal trade channels, during the isolation period of the cold war and as far back as the mid 1930s in the case of Nazi Germany.

Wall street has always been corrupt and willing to support enemy regimes, as did the Mobile oil and other powerful conglomerates.

Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

Ford motors gave Hitler hybrid formulas for aviation fuel that enabled Hitler to build the fastest planes for the Blitzkrieg. This assured business between Hitler and the Ford factory making military vehicles in the mother land.



edit on 3-8-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar




top topics



 
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join